Thats good it balances the spell so you arent guarenteed to find a place however i think you may need to bump up the percentages a bit. ill test it out and come back to you.
|
I'm thinking you might be able to handle it similar to the Scrying spell, where you get a better result if you have a familiarity or a specific reference to the location you're seeking.
So, with no specific knowledge of the place you're seeking, you *could* just cast the spell and hope for the best, but having a detailed description of the location, or map showing the actual location, or actual personal knowledge of the place (having been there yourself), or maybe even an object taken from the place in question would give you a benefit in either casting the spell or in the result you get from casting it.
Edit: also, what if instead of automatically knowing the proper direction, the target would need to make Perception checks during the spell's duration to determine the correct direction from your current location?
Stopping every once in a while to mentally "sniff out" the path (and possibly providing a bad result for a failed role) seems much less powerful than automatically knowing which way to go, and the Perception DC could be modified based on the strength of the caster's (or target's) connection to the location being found, distance to the location sought, etc.
More Edit: based on the above, I'd add something along these lines to the spell description, after the sentence starting with "The spell ends when .." and before the sentence about using Find the Path to exit a maze spell:
-----------
The subject may make a Perception check at any time during the spell's duration to determine the correct direction to the location he is seeking.
The base DC for this check is 10, modified by distance as follows:
- within one mile +0
- within ten miles +2
- within 100 miles +4
- within 1000 miles +6
- within 10,000 miles +8
The subject receives a bonus to his Perception check if he is in some way familiar with or knowledgeable about the location being sought. Apply only the best bonus from the following list:
- has read about the location or seen it on a map +2
- has seen the location or visited briefly +4
- spent some time (days or weeks) in or close to the location +6
- very familiar with location +8
- intimately familiar with location +10
-----------
For exiting a maze spell, DC due to distance at DM's discretion (maybe based on maze spellcaster's level?). Add bonus to Perception check as normal, so you'd get at least a +4 since you've at least seen and/or visited briefly the spot where you were standing when hit with the maze.
Even More Edit: Meant to say - adjudicate failed Perception checks similar to splash rules for thrown weapons; either roll a d8 on a failed check or move one 'tick' either way for each [x] points the check is failed by, and 'point' the subject to the nearest passage or open area based on that direction (i.e., there's a chance he could still accidentally get it right).
|
|
Hmm, the problem with that is that a lost city would only be DC 16 or 18 and they might get a +2 on their check if they have read about where the city might be (depends on the GM's ruling). Not a bad idea though, maybe inch the DC up. Possible add penalties for less known about city or location but would need to be specific on what that would mean.
Yeah, this was really just a rough as I'm at work currently and shouldn't have been spending time on this at all ;p
Unfortunately I don't have an opportunity to playtest the PRPG Alpha rules, much less any of my own ideas, but whenever I have what feels like a reasonably solid start I throw it up here somewhere just to add to the conversation.
I'd be careful not to add too many variables or conditions for modifying either the DC or the subject's Perception check, as the spell description could very quickly become bloated. Maybe some of the conditions more specific to a particular situation (i.e., lost cities in your example) could be adjudicated on the fly by the DM based on whether the circumstance is favorable/unfavorable.
It still needn't be automatic, as there is always the possibility of rolling a 1 (if you play that as automatic failure, or even a -10 penalty). And, as you say, adjusting the base DC, the DC modifiers for distance, and the Perception check bonuses for knowledge of the location can get you a combination that makes it less-than-automatic for most but still within easy reach of a character who has spent the resources specializing in Perception.
Thanks for the feeback!
I am in full support of removing the spell from the game entirely, as suggested in the sidebar.
If you want to keep Find the Path, make it find the path *out* of something not *to* something. Change the description like this:
"The recipient of this spell can find the shortest, most
direct physical route out of a large specified location,
such as a city, keep, lake, or dungeon. The locale can
be outdoors or underground, as long as it is large.
For example, a hunter’s cabin is not large enough, but
a logging camp is. Find the path works with respect to
the subject of the spell and the specified locale the subject occupies.
The spell works only on the plane the target is in at the time of casting.
The spell enables the subject to sense the correct
direction that will eventually lead it out of the specified locale,
indicating at appropriate times the exact path to follow
or physical actions to take. For example, the spell
enables the subject to sense what cavern corridor to take
when a choice presents itself. The spell ends when the
subject exits the specified locale or the duration expires, whichever
comes first.
Find the path can be used to remove the
subject and its companions from the effect of a maze
spell in a single round, specifying the maze as the locale.
This divination is keyed to the recipient, not its
companions, and its effect does not predict or allow for
the actions of creatures (including guardians)."
|
I am in full support of removing the spell from the game entirely, as suggested in the sidebar.
Remove it.
If the adventure requires the party to get very quickly to a specific location, an NPC guide, a map, skill checks (Knowledge, Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc,) will make it fun for the party* without bypassing the encounters set up on the indirect path to the location.*If they are into this sort of thing, obviously. If they are not, maybe a gladiatoral adventure with teleports/portals to the various stages of the Sword and Claw World Tour would be better than a dungeon crawl.
I am in full support of removing the spell from the game entirely, as suggested in the sidebar.Remove it.
If the adventure requires the party to get very quickly to a specific location, an NPC guide, a map, skill checks (Knowledge, Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc,) will make it fun for the party* without bypassing the encounters set up on the indirect path to the location.*If they are into this sort of thing, obviously. If they are not, maybe a gladiatoral adventure with teleports/portals to the various stages of the Sword and Claw World Tour would be better than a dungeon crawl.
Remove it. It ruins good adventures. Substitute some sort of fuzzy divination spell, perhaps. One whose results are open to multiple interpretations.
Regardless, ditch this spell. It's bad, IMHO.
Well, my suggestion in the last Alpha was:
1) You can always find the path to a place where you've been before, just like casting the 3.5 version.
2) Finding a place you haven't been before requires a skill check; a failed check gives you the path to somewhere else. (You didn't specify clearly enough; the spell does its best to obey, but magic has limits).
Use high enough DCs, and nobody's finding a lost city unless they're epic characters with a lot of Knowledge (Geography). They're similarly not using it to find the assassin's guild in the sewers unless they have lots of Knowledge (Local).
|
|
My take on Find the Path changes a lot of the mechanics but fills a similar niche.
Find the Path
School divination (mind-affecting); Level bard 3, cleric 3, druid 3
Casting
Casting Time 3 rounds
Components V, S, F (a set of divination counters)
Effect
Range Personal or touch
Area 50 foot burst
Duration 10 min/level
Saving Throw none or Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance
no or yes (harmless)
Description
The caster of this spell surveys the minds of all those in the area of effect, picking their minds for directions to a location (hereafter referred to as his “query”). The query can be vague (such as “Where is a tavern in this city?”) to specific (such as “Where is the Half-Pint tavern owned by Clarencia the gnome?”), and it can also be opinion-based (such as “Where is the best tavern in this city?”). A query can be the location of any person, place, or object, however the results are based on common knowledge and word choice is very important. Simply saying “Where is my sister?” will not likely garner results because this assumes everyone being surveyed knows who your sister is, that she is your sister, and where she is most likely to be at the moment.
At the completion of the spell, an ethereal line visible only to the caster is drawn along the most direct route between the spot the spell was cast and the location of the query. This line takes into consideration the caster’s available modes of transportation at the time of casting, unless he specifically wants certain modes disregarded. For example, a wizard with a flying carpet would learn the most direct route by land or by air, unless he only wanted land-based directions so his fighter friend could follow along.
The strength of the aura depends on the consensus of those surveyed, as indicated on the following chart:
Aura...............Consensus
Overwhelming.......Unanimous
Strong.............Three-quarters majority
Moderate...........One-half majority
Weak...............One-quarter majority
None...............Less than five individuals*
*Supersedes the consensus of the survey
Using “the best tavern in this city” query as an example, if the caster surveys fifty people, half of which feel Flint’s Tavern to be the best, one quarter of which feel Tipsy’s Tavern is the best, and the rest are undecided, a moderate ethereal line will show the caster the most direct route to Flint’s Tavern only. If five people are surveyed and four of them feel Flint’s Tavern to be the best, no line appears as there are too few individuals to form a strong enough consensus for the spell, even though it is more than three-quarters majority.
Although this spell is mind-affecting, there is no will save because it does not specify exactly who was thinking what. However, any subjects that consider the query private information, such as a secret they are privy to, the spell reacts the same as it does to an “I don’t know”, it simply is not counted.
I dunno, I read "physical actions to take" to mean alot more than "push that lever".
You come to 350 wide ravine. The spell says:
"climb down. walk 350 feet north. Climb up."
It's told you the physical actions to take.
"The recipient of this spell can find the shortest, most
direct physical route to a large specified destination,.."
Not the safest. Not the fastest. Not the easiest. Not the most convenient.
Find where the PC's are and draw a straight line to the destination. That is what the spell provides.
I think it also helps with traps- but the "physical actions" isn't limited to that. "Climb" and "swim" are also physical actions.
-S
If we're going to keep Find The Path, I think that we need to narrow the scope of the spell's effect while allowing it to remain accurate enough to be useful. I also don't think that it should be able to direct characters to locations that they haven't already visited, nor should it allow characters to find their way into a specific area that is a part or a sub-set of a given location. Ultimately, I believe that Find The Path should be used to accurately navigate to major geographical locations, to find the most direct route to escape from dungeons, and to escape from mazes and Maze spells quickly.
Here's my take on it:
School: Divination
Level: Bard 6, Cleric 6, Druid 6
Casting Time: 3 rounds
Components V, S, F (a set of divination counters)
Range: Personal or Touch
Target: You or Creature touched
Duration: 10 min/level
Saving Throw: None or Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
The recipient of this spell can find the shortest and most direct physical route to a destination that he or she has already visited. Find The Path works with respect to locations, not objects or creatures at a location. The target destination must be on the same plane as the recipient of the spell at the time of casting.
The spell enables the subject to sense the correct direction that will eventually lead it to its chosen destination, indicating at appropriate times the exact path to follow. For example, the spell enables the subject to sense what cavern corridor to take when a choice presents itself. However, the spell does not reveal anything about the presence or absence of any obstacles, traps, creatures, or guardians along the route, nor does it provide any insight on how to circumvent these hazards; it simply provides the raw geographical information necessary to successfully navigate to the chosen destination. The spell ends when the destination is reached or the duration expires, whichever comes first.
Find The Path can also be used to remove the subject and its companions from the effect of a maze spell in a single round by specifying the destination as "outside the maze".
This divination is keyed to the recipient, not its companions, and its effect does not predict or allow for the actions of other creatures.
And yet I still fear that this spell may be too powerful. What do you think, sirs?
I disagree with the limitation of having to have been there before.
The text already limits it to large locales, so finding a specific spot inside a dungeon is already out of the question, as would be finding a specific room unless it was *very* large.
A cabin isn't big enough. A logging camp is.
I might have preferred the spell to give the physical dimensions of "big enough", but the textual limitations seem to prohibit much of the stuff that was going on before.
"i wanna know where the goblin king's throne room is".
Now it
"I wanna know where the goblin city of Krayola Ville is" and you get the location.
Knowing where a city is, and finding something inside it, are quite different.
At the level of the spell I believe PC's should be able to find gross physical locations. Gross meaning, large and obvious,even if otherwise hard to find.
Slogging through a jungle with a decaying map trying to find the destination really isn't where adventures should be, at this point of the game. The adventure should start at the location not at whatever city they are in. They have advanced past that particular difficulty.
-S
I disagree with the limitation of having to have been there before.
The text already limits it to large locales, so finding a specific spot inside a dungeon is already out of the question, as would be finding a specific room unless it was *very* large.
At the level of the spell I believe PC's should be able to find gross physical locations. Gross meaning, large and obvious, even if otherwise hard to find.
Being able to navigate to a specific geographical location that you know nothing about aside from its given name is still too powerful. Indeed, it would seem that the ability to navigate to "lost cities" and "hidden dungeons" that the players know very little about is PRECISELY what the game designers are hung up on in regards to keeping this spell. And this is even after they removed the VERY broken element of allowing you to know what traps, creatures, and obstacles were along the path that the spell laid out for you.
There needs to be some kind of limiting factor that prevents players from doing this. And the easiest option is having characters be able to only navigate to locations that they have already visited (in which case the spell really should probably be dropped down to 4th level). But this isn't the only possible solution. Other great solutions have been put forth by Crimson Jester, Rodel , and Charles Scholtz.
I personally like the idea that Crimson Jester suggested. It prevents the caster from navigating to unknown locations and allows the spell to be used to track down missing objects, so long as the objects/locations in question have been Arcane Marked in advance. It also rewards creative PCs that can figure out ways to get marked objects into areas that they have not visited before while simultaneously introducing the risk that these objects can be used to mislead the PCs. It's a variant on this spell that not only addresses the main issue that the designers seem to be concerned with, but also introduces a rich new element to the game system.
Slogging through a jungle with a decaying map trying to find the destination really isn't where adventures should be, at this point of the game. The adventure should start at the location not at whatever city they are in. They have advanced past that particular difficulty.
I'd agree with this sentiment if we were talking about a high-level game. But characters receive this spell at level 12. There's probably a good bit more slogging through the jungle/sailing the seas/tunneling through the Underdark to be done before you get access to higher-level divination spells, teleportation, or airships.
Even if we went forward with Find The Path as it stands today, it still would have a profound impact on the way most campaign worlds work. All you would need to do is obtain the name of a place, and you would be able to get there very easily. The only thing that would remain is overpowering the traps, puzzles, and guardians at the location. For example, I imagine that there wouldn't be a single unlooted ruin left in Xendrick - especially given the amount of wealth and firepower that the Dragonmarked Houses have to throw at any puzzles or guardians that get in their way. I imagine the Shades wouldn't have many problems tracking down most of their old, treasure-laden Netherese ruins either.
The exact purpose of the spell is to find unknown locations. That is what this spell *does*.
If you've already been to the location you don't need FTP. You need Teleport. Its faster. Alot faster.
If you already know where you are going then there are already spells that will get you from where you are to where you want to be.
This is the one spell that will let you go to somewhere you've never been. That's the entire point. It is this spell's reason for existence. If you remove that from the spell, then remove the spell.
If you want some "limit" then increase the casting time and shorten the duration. Force the PC's to stop more often and cast it again. (stopping in potentially dangerous territory, and potentially having to stop for the night so the caster can regain spells). The primary spell effect however needs to remain in tact- that of finding unknown locations.
The PC's are 12th level.
They can plane hop. They can planet hop. They can raise the dead.
They can ping the far reaches of the outer planes to have their questions answered.
Why can't they find that dang city? It's just too lost.
This spell is fine.
3.5 FTP works in FR right now. Why haven't the shades already gotten all their artifacts? Nothing in 3.5 prevents them from using an ancient Netherese map to know the names and look up any number of locations.
All they have needed are bards or clerics capable of casting the spell, and off they could go.
It hasn't happened yet.
It isn't likely to happen.
(ask the writers why.. heck, I dunno)
Paizo's version is weaker than the 3.5. If they didn't use it in 3.5 they are unlikely to begin doing so now.
As for Xendrik- you have to know the name of the location, or at least have Some knowledge of it. Simply saying "a ruin somewhere" shouldn't work. That leaves most of the island of X still to be explored. (since you are trying to find ruins, not locate a specific already identified ruin.)
It could be interesting to use it in Cyre though.. (or does Mournland block divinations?.. I forget.. Oi!)
-S
There should be a clear progression and scaling among the "find the" spells:
0--know direction
2nd--locate object
4th--locate creature
6th--find the path
8th--discern location
These form a logical and well-spaced spell chain; their effects should take that into account.
(ask the writers why.. heck, I dunno)
THAT is the problem.
Writers taking spells into account has nothing to do with this particular spell.
It is an issue with the writers of source books and adventures.
I agree that published works should take into account all the core spells that could come into effect with it- but they didn't. Not much I can do about that. And rewriting FTP because of it, is relatively nosensical.
The spell should be rewritten, or left alone, based solely on whether or not its balanced.
Is the ability, at 12th level, to expend a spell slot in order to accurately locate a "large locale" that you've never been to, Overpowered? That is the issue.
The issue USED to be, whether or not a 12th level caster could expend a 6th level spell slot to locate a room and bypass all the traps and guardians along the trail. It WAS OP. And has been nerfed.
Is it still OP?
In my opinion? No. For the level the PC's are at, it's adequate. It does what higher level spells do- it lets the PC"s circumvent bits of reality to get on with the "goal" of the adventure, without making it pointless. (i.e. it takes you to the city, but doesn't show you where the Arkenstone is. You still hafta search the city to find it, racing against who knows what in the process, etc..)
It saves time. Teleport does the same thing. So does Word of Recall, and Plane Shift.
The PC's are over half way through the core level progression. They are at the 2/3 mark in overall spell level (9 being the top, 3 being 1/3, 6 being 2/3). Their spells should make big differences. This one does.
-S
If you've already been to the location you don't need FTP. You need Teleport. Its faster. Alot faster.
If you already know where you are going then there are already spells that will get you from where you are to where you want to be.
Hence why I suggested that you drop the nerfed Find The Path to 4th level, placing it just below Teleport. Or go the Arcane Mark route and keep it at 6th level.
This is the one spell that will let you go to somewhere you've never been. That's the entire point. It is this spell's reason for existence. If you remove that from the spell, then remove the spell.
And seeing as how this is the main reason why the designers have a problem with the spell, it will more then likely be removed unless some limiting factors are put into play.
The PC's are 12th level. They can plane hop. They can planet hop. They can raise the dead. They can ping the far reaches of the outer planes to have their questions answered.
If you drop it to 4th level, then we're looking at 7th and 8th level characters using the spell, and all of the above are still out of the question.
Why can't they find that dang city? It's just too lost.
This spell is fine.
If the spell was ACTUALLY fine, then there wouldn't be all of this talk regarding how to fix it. I know this might be one of your favorite spells from 3.5, but it is definitely not balanced.
The spell should be rewritten, or left alone, based solely on whether or not its balanced.
No. D&D (and Pathfinder) is a game for Storytelling and Adventures. If something threatens that goal, it is bad for the game, no matter how 'fair' it is.
A perfectly sensible universe could be constructed in which Find the Path works. However, it would be a much less interesting one.
Professional writers are just that, professional. They are paid to figure these things out. If someone who writes adventures for a living can't adjust to the existence of a spell, how can a busy DM cope?
People went crazy over King Eodred not being Raised from the dead in PF#7 because death can very clearly be temporary in D&D, but that's in the forefront.
Whereas in PF#6, no one batted an eye at Xin-Shalast still being lost, despite the fact that Find the Path would have uncovered it immediately. Lots of groups don't use Find the Path, not because it's not useful, but because its not immediately obvious that Magic is the solution.
You want to find a lost city at level 11, when you get 6th level spells? Fine. Cast Commune and ask good questions. Make it interesting.
Whereas in PF#6, no one batted an eye at Xin-Shalast still being lost, despite the fact that Find the Path would have uncovered it immediately.
I haven't played in it, but my first thought upon reading it was, "What's the problem? Find the Path it and then just wind walk straight to Karzoug. Why clamber around the Himalayas like a bunch of rubes?"
The alternative, of course, is that all lost cities "just happen" to be magically protected from scrying. And if that's the case, why have the scrying magic at all?
Whereas in PF#6, no one batted an eye at Xin-Shalast still being lost, despite the fact that Find the Path would have uncovered it immediately.I haven't played in it, but my first thought upon reading it was, "What's the problem? Find the Path it and then just wind walk straight to Karzoug. Why clamber around the Himalayas like a bunch of rubes?"
Honestly, that doesn't break the adventure (though it does bypass some of it). The problem is that Xin-Shalast was an El Dorado or Shangri-La. Adventuring parties should have scoured every bit of Shalasti gold out of there long ago. Lost cities simply can't exist with Find the Path in the universe, as long as Sages still know the name of the city.
The alternative, of course, is that all lost cities "just happen" to be magically protected from scrying. And if that's the case, why have the scrying magic at all?
Using Scry and Commune to hunt for a lost city is a lot more interesting. At the very least, you have to build up information over time, instead of just saying 'Umm, Xin-Shalast, right?'.
Using Scry and Commune to hunt for a lost city is a lot more interesting. At the very least, you have to build up information over time, instead of just saying 'Umm, Xin-Shalast, right?'.
Yeah, I prefer that solution. I'd like to keep find the path but nerf it so that it's the spell of choice when you're lost in a labyrinth ("All these tunnels look alike! Which one leads us down to the next level?").
Actually I could care less about this spell in general. I'm not in favor of hacking spells to pieces just because some folks don't like it.
If you don't like it, get rid of it. That isn't the same thing though as it being a balance issue.
They saw the problems with the spell and they've suitably nerfed it. It doesn't need to be removed, or rewritten so as to undo the entire point of the spell.
I don't agree that you need to remove the spell's ability to find lost locations. You don't agree that it should be kept. At this point, I really don't think we're going to come to a suitable solution for us both, since the spell can't be made to both find lost locations and Not find lost locations, at the same time.
-S
If you don't like it, get rid of it. I really don't think we're going to come to a suitable solution for us both, since the spell can't be made to both find lost locations and Not find lost locations, at the same time.
I have to disagree; that's like saying a fireball can't be made to both burn people up and not burn them up, at the same time? But it does; it has a damage cap, and allows a saving throw. Spells don't need to be absolutes; they can be "tweaked" with limitations. Find the path can be tweaked further to function well for various preferences and styles of play. If you, personally, don't care about it, there's no need to participate in the discussion. For those who do, there's no reason we should be required to stop thinking about it.
The exact purpose of the spell is to find unknown locations. That is what this spell *does*.
If you've already been to the location you don't need FTP. You need Teleport. Its faster. Alot faster.
If you already know where you are going then there are already spells that will get you from where you are to where you want to be.
This is the one spell that will let you go to somewhere you've never been. That's the entire point. It is this spell's reason for existence. If you remove that from the spell, then remove the spell.
If you want some "limit" then increase the casting time and shorten the duration. Force the PC's to stop more often and cast it again. (stopping in potentially dangerous territory, and potentially having to stop for the night so the caster can regain spells). The primary spell effect however needs to remain in tact- that of finding unknown locations.
The PC's are 12th level.
They can plane hop. They can planet hop. They can raise the dead.
They can ping the far reaches of the outer planes to have their questions answered.Why can't they find that dang city? It's just too lost.
This spell is fine.
3.5 FTP works in FR right now. Why haven't the shades already gotten all their artifacts? Nothing in 3.5 prevents them from using an ancient Netherese map to know the names and look up any number of locations.
All they have needed are bards or clerics capable of casting the spell, and off they could go.
It hasn't happened yet.
It isn't likely to happen.
(ask the writers why.. heck, I dunno)Paizo's version is weaker than the 3.5. If they didn't use it in 3.5 they are unlikely to begin doing so now.
As for Xendrik- you have to know the name of the location, or at least have Some knowledge of it. Simply saying "a ruin somewhere" shouldn't work. That leaves most of the island of X still to be explored. (since you are trying to find ruins, not locate a specific already identified ruin.)
It could be interesting to use it in Cyre though.. (or does...
I agree with this.
Seeking divine or arcane assistance in a Quest is a staple of the fantasy genre. The spell itself is a mechanic that provides an entry into roleplay. In this case getting to the location is the challenge once its' whereabouts is known. Or there may be a valid ingame reason for the location being undetectable.
Find the Path can stop a storyline stalling.
Kirth:
Actually it's more akin to saying that Fire can both burn and not burn. It can't do both.
Fire burns. Fire causes damage.
Now, not all fire catches things on fire.
Not all fires burn as hot as others.
But you can't say "I want a spell to do fire damage, without doing fire damage".
With FTP it seems there are two "sides" if I may coin it that way.
1) Let it find unknown locations
2) Don't let it find unknown locations.
If there is a 3rd, a middle ground, then I'm all for considering it. I'm not against toning the spell back somewhat (see previous posts for some small ideas on that), but overall IMO the guts of the spell need to remain intact. It isn't unbalancing, at level 12, to be able to skip the jungle and get on with the story, if the point of the story doesn't start until you get to the "location" anyway.
It's been stated that if a spell interferes with the flavor or feel of the campaign then that should matter more than the mechanical balance.
I agree- in your campaign, that is a major issue.
But it isn't an issue to be addressed with the core rule books because No one here can attest to how Your campaign will feel. If you want your 11th level PC's to slog through jungles to find the lost City then that really is your business, and it's your campaign. But the others who think that at level 11 the PC's should be beyond that, shouldn't be so hindered.
The "feel" and the "flavor" is something that a DM creates and enforces as ehe campaign progresses. If a spell or class or item or ability doesn't mesh with it then the DM should remove it. That doesn't mean the spell, class, item, or ability is inappropriate for Any campaign. We meed a standard that is more objective than that.
The standard is to compare that spell to other spells of its level, those that are higher, and those that are lower. You evaluate the spell based on what it does, whats expended to get it, and how long it takes to achieve the desired result. It's relatively objective and lets the designers create and modify spells to ensure that in general, a certain level of balance is achieved across the spell level.
The issue with FTP is:
Is the ability, at level 11, for the expenditure of one of your highest spell slots, to tell you how to get from where you are to some place you have only heard of but haven't actually been to, too powerful?
That is the issue here.
The previous incarnation(s) have already been deemed too powerful. Namely the ability to locate a small area and the path to it, thereby rendering traps and such useless and dungeons themselves somewhat useless by ignoring all rooms but those that lead to the primary encounter.
Combined with the most powerful over-land transport (where you actually move over land, rather than teleporting) you have Windwalk.
Given the speeds and durations of each, if we assume a 11th level cleric can cast 2 spells of 6th level, this combination allows them to travel 110 miles in 110 minutes.
(+1 6th level spell requires a 22 wisdom by 11th level for this to work. A P3 human starting at 18 with +2 for race adding +2 for level could get this, as could one starting at 16 with the +2 stat booster..)
Is this over powered? This is the best it gets unless someone finds a better core travel spell. Is 110 miles in 2 hours to find a gross physical location, over powered?
Personally, I do not think so.
Given what else you have to play with for those spell levels the ability to simply find an unknown location really isn't all that powerful. It's only "abusive" if the DM repeatedly constructs campaigns revolving around PC's finding lost locations without adding any incentives for them to actually travel over land. Such issues are with the DM though not with the spell.
If we go with the idea that it is abusive- and I don't think it is- but if we assume it is, how could we trim it back?
Increase the casting time.
Longer casting time means less time traveling about.
Reduce the duration.
Either make the duration static. (1 hour or some such).
Or reduce it to the next lowest "standard". from 10m/level to 1m/level.
Instead of lasting nearly 2 hours at level 11 it would last 11 minutes. Given it takes 5 rounds for a subject of windwalk to go into or out of gas form, this would leave 10 minutes 7 seconds of movement for each casting of FTP. I'm not sure it needs this much of a nerf. (given mile a minute speed of WW, that's 10.7 miles per casting) 1 hour static duration, no way to increase or enhance it, would suffice.(allowing WW+FTP would be about 60 miles per casting. 11th level casters would have a hard time keeping that up and when they arrived most if not all of their 6th level spells would be gone. Higher level folks would have fewer problems, but.. that's how leveling up works..)
Increase the requirements for casting:
The could be interpreted as being vague as to what exactly you have to know to find a location.
"a large specified location, such as a city, keep, lake, or dungeon".
Do you have to know the name of it? Do you just have to know A name of it? Do you have to have any clue as to the location?
The spell could require more information than just a name. Perhaps a specific name to find it. Some places have more than one name. Some newer names, some older names. (if you read Wheel of Time, think about some of the cities. Most have 2 names. A longer name- ancient and unused, and a newer name).
This could perhaps be the most substantive "nerf" to the spell that could also turn out to be absolutely nothing. Similar to how druids must be "familiar" with the creatures they turn into, for example. That's a hard fast rule that's left completely undefined. Some DM's might require an autopsy while others might require scant rumor or just for it to be in the MM.
I am not against changing parts of the spell. I am against removing the point of the spell. The spell exists to allow PC's to find locations that they don't know the location of. That is this spell. Altering the spell to make it more laborous to cast, or to take more castings to get the job done, should be sufficient to keep it either rare, or to make the PC's weaker when they arrive. The point of the spell however needs to remain intact. Otherwise there is no point to having the spell.
-S
edit for spelling, math, and general errors.
Selagard,
Awesome -- thank you for the reply -- I can definitely see where you're coming from now. I think I agree almost all the way across the board, too, now that I understand you better... except in terms of comparison with other spells -- it still seems like find the path in 3.5 was far better than discern location (a similar, but higher-level spell), for example -- FtP told you how to avoid all the traps AND how to get there, whereas DL just told you where it was.
Your input on tweaking FtP downwards is extremely helpful, inasfar as it seems to preserve the sense of the spell, while making it more in line with a 6th level location spell instead of an 8th level location spell. I agree that limiting the duration would cut down on all kinds of abuse potential. That's just the sort of thing I was after, and somehow missed it before (my fault).
I, personally, still feel that overland flight and wind walk and teleport take a lot of the fun out of higher-level gaming, because they reduce exploration to a spell to be cast instead of a major part of the adventure. But that's an issue of personal taste, not necessarily a problem with the system.
Reduce the duration.
Either make the duration static. (1 hour or some such).
Or reduce it to the next lowest "standard". from 10m/level to 1m/level.
Instead of lasting nearly 2 hours at level 11 it would last 11 minutes. Given it takes 5 rounds for a subject of windwalk to go into or out of gas form, this would leave 10 minutes 7 seconds of movement for each casting of FTP. I'm not sure it needs this much of a nerf. (given mile a minute speed of WW, that's 10.7 miles per casting) 1 hour static duration, no way to increase or enhance it, would suffice.(allowing WW+FTP would be about 60 miles per casting. 11th level casters would have a hard time keeping that up and when they arrived most if not all of their 6th level spells would be gone. Higher level folks would have fewer problems, but.. that's how leveling up works..)Increase the requirements for casting:
The could be interpreted as being vague as to what exactly you have to know to find a location.
"a large specified location, such as a city, keep, lake, or dungeon".Do you have to know the name of it? Do you just have to know A name of it? Do you have to have any clue as to the location?
The spell could require more information than just a name. Perhaps a specific name to find it. Some places have more than one name. Some newer names, some older names. (if you read Wheel of Time, think about some of the cities. Most have 2 names. A longer name- ancient and unused, and a newer name).
This could perhaps be the most substantive "nerf" to the spell that could also turn out to be absolutely nothing. Similar to how druids must be "familiar" with the creatures they turn into, for example. That's a hard fast rule that's left completely undefined. Some DM's might require an autopsy while others might require scant rumor or just for it to be in the MM.
These are both quite good ideas. The second one also provides a built in mechanism to keep lost cities lost.
Kirth:
It does remove some exploration, but I think that was done for the integrity of the game world.
"exploration" takes 2 main types.
One is just exploring landscape. You describe the location, the PC's move on.
The second type revolves around "random encounters".
the first without the second Can be extremely repetitive and boring. (it doesn't have to be- but it does tend to be). This is especially true when all the PC's are doing is covering mile after mile of relatively uninteresting land. Not every square foot of forest, jungle, plains, or arctic tundra is going to be "interesting". Alot of it is described "en masse" so to speak. aka "you covered 120 miles, and then came across this interesting thing".
This leads to random encounters.
The higher you get, the more problematic random encounters become. If they are combat oriented then you have to look into why this creature hasn't dominated the area yet. If it has dominated the area then it's less of a random encounter, and more of something the PC's have probably heard of.
"beware old silverback.." who turns out to be a 12HD awakened Legendary fiendish dire gorilla or some such.
You run into those sorts of world-consistency problems. That, or the PC's keep running into things half or less of their CR which are only combat encounters if the PC's go about slaughtering things that are far below them. In novels and such this happens but not so much for PC's. If PC's run across goblins at 11th or 12th level they either think the DM is high, or that there is some intrinsic plot developing that they need to pay attention to.
Therefore, when the PC's start getting to the level where random encounters that would prove a challenge are actually problematic to the ecosystem and world-coherency, they tend to get spells that allow them to bypass the problem. It's a problem with mid-high level play, rather than with FTP specifically. Lets face it, Teleport does the same thing.
-S
(Sigh) You're right, of course. Maybe high-level gaming just isn't for me... except in small doses. If exploring the cool ruined city is no longer an issue, and all you get to do is magically "pop in" and fight yet another super-monster, then a lot of my enjoyment evaporates as well.
Noo.
Exploring the city is still very much possible.
What isn't done anymore is taking 2 game-days "advenuring' to get from home city to the lost city.
the new FTP (p3 FTP) keeps PC's from "homing in" on a particular building. Best it could do is put PC's at the outskirts of the city.
Once they are there, then the adventure begins. Gotta find X before the bad guys do.
(and if, occasionally, you want them to slog through the jungle- setup the adventure such that the PC's need to find him before he gets there.. thus creating a scenario whereby they have to chase him through the jungle..)
Exploring ancient areas is still very much "In". All that's being removed by FTP is the time taken to actually get to the exploration area.
-S